I actually like the forum for prunes better. But anyway, not sure why you are attacking my "expertise" of telexes and time stamps with such
aggression, I do have to look at them and type them all day.

And I hate to say it but I don't believe the 9/11 official story at all, I don't at all believe that two planes brought down three towers. My
favourite thread on here and the reason I joined was that 9/11 undebunkable thread from months ago, I showed that to my wife and told my friends about
it. Actually I have believed in the controversy since the controversy started. So no, I am not employing any kind of secret tactics to pull the wool
over peoples eyes, simply stating fact.

Congrats on being an EX pilot for continental, that's awesome.

What other question am I suppose to answer that relates to this? Or can you tell me why I should explain about cat a and b? I don't get the relevance,
not being sarcastic or anything. Maybe you can share your expertise with us?

Being as how you seem to have so much and only have done 3 posts I'm sure you have much more to add then simply trying to point out that I suck

Originally posted by gman1972
...not sure why you are attacking my "expertise" of telexes and time stamps with such aggression, I do have to look at them and type them all day.

I'm not "attacking" your "expertise". I am questioning it.

Considering the experts who have placed their name to Pilots For 9/11 Truth, backed by independent corroboration and source, you have not presented
any source for your claims that the second time stamp is based on a "printer", and all other sources contradict your claim, including claims made by
"Proudbird" that the second time stamp refers to when ARINC "ground systems" received the message.

Why have you not corrected "Proudbird" if you feel the second time stamp is based on,

"
The top one is the referrence to when the acars is sent, the one on the bottom is basically a footer for the person who sent the message:

";09111303 108575 0545"

So, why would any reader he listen to you over the OP article?"

and...

"The one at the top says what time the message was sent, the one at the bottom shows when it was printed. "

You actually contradict yourself.

can you tell me why I should explain about cat a and b? I don't get the relevance, not being sarcastic or anything. Maybe you can share your
expertise with us?

It is referenced, explained and thoroughly sourced in the OP article. Have you read it yet?

Are you, or are you not....familiar with Category A and B flight tracking as described by ARINC with respect to ACARS?

This is a good example of a position report along the aircraft's flight route. In this case, United flight 970 is a North latitude 39.09.2 and West
longitude 76.13.6, which happens to be the waypoint named SWANN, and they were over SWANN at 2155.16 UTC, at FL230 (Flight Level 230 or 23,000
feet),
and they are estimating next waypoint GOLDA at 2156.24, next position BROSS. Outside air temperature is a minus 21, wind 282/14.

Adding: Anyone who wishes to go "whole hog" can down load an ACARS decoder from the website below:

However, because of the merger with Continental, many "former" CAL are now listed in the United database, at airfleets.net. And, are active. So,
using the free download software, you can enter the N-numbers to look at messages.

(ALL the -400s are former CAL. ALL the -300s are former UAL The two -200s are former CAL. Note the suffixes....the ones ending in a "2" are
original Uniteds, and the ones ending in a "4" are original Continental. The N-numbers are another clue. Note they can be sequential? This is what
some companies do, they reserve "blocks" of numbers, much like personalized license plates for your car).

I am truly sorry, impressme, but upon many reviews of the things posted by this account name, I find it mostly fruitless to
respond. Most replies are either ignored (if they happen to refute a claim) or met with the repeat of the original (falsified) claim,
again.

This is the very first time that you have EVER responded to me and my post. You just told a fallacy to me and everyone on here claiming that I ignore
your questions and that I repeat false claims this is completely untrue and you know that.
How can you make up such an accusation against me when you have [color=gold]never responded to any of my post until now? We are up to
five pg. and anyone reading your statements (quote above) can go back to the beginning of this thread and see who likes to make up nonsence in here.

The answers to those questions have been given, already....and are perfectly available as well, IF the proper reseach is done.

Please provide a source, you made all these negatives claims against important people you called them liars. You still have not address any of my
questions, but only to tell me I need to do some research. Perhaps you believe you are on a chat site and credibility is not important when one is
arguing one’s opinions. We like to debunk or prove that something’s are true or false, millions of people read these threads every day and if
you start attacking very important people and call them liars then you should be able to back up your claims.

Most people on here including me do not find your source from” 911Myths credible.” 911 Myths website has been rejected by most people who have
done some real research on 911 including me. 911 Myths website has been debunk many times and has been proven a fraud, by me and others on ATS. 911
Myths only supports the OS of 911 and is extremely bias of outside opinions and has rejected scientific evidence that proves the OS is a lie. The
authors of 911 Myths do not like to be challenged and consider the OS of 911 the truth. This is your source you just gave me?

Originally posted by gman1972
...not sure why you are attacking my "expertise" of telexes and time stamps with such aggression, I do have to look at them and type them all day.
[quote

I'm not "attacking" your "expertise". I am questioning it.

Considering the experts who have placed their name to Pilots For 9/11 Truth, backed by independent corroboration and source, you have not presented
any source for your claims that the second time stamp is based on a "printer", and all other sources contradict your claim, including claims made by
"Proudbird" that the second time stamp refers to when ARINC "ground systems" received the message.

These aren't my claims, they are just common knowledge. Just like when you miss a call on your cell it shows what time it came at.... really that's
it. Just to be sure I asked around the office and they all said that the first time is the time it was sent, the second time is the time it was
printed. Now it is totally possible that the delay is getting the message to ARINC and once it gets there it's instantly transmitted to the printer.
Kind of like making a long distance phone call in the old days, takes ages to get to where it's going, but as soon as it does the phone on the other
side rings. I didn't correct Proudbird because I though we were saying similar enough things.

The top one is the referrence to when the acars is sent, the one on the bottom is basically a footer for the person who sent the message:

";09111303 108575 0545"

"The one at the top says what time the message was sent, the one at the bottom shows when it was printed. "

You actually contradict yourself.

Yes I see how that could be said, however I was talking about two different sides to the coin which I didn't explain. If I send a message the bottom
is what I use for reference (footer) as to when it was send and what the telex number is. For the receiver it shows when it was received/printed at
the bottom. Like an email, my sent reference is at the bottom, and for the receiver the time received is at the bottom. Hope that clears it up.

can you tell me why I should explain about cat a and b? I don't get the relevance, not being sarcastic or anything. Maybe you can share your
expertise with us?

It is referenced, explained and thoroughly sourced in the OP article. Have you read it yet?

Are you, or are you not....familiar with Category A and B flight tracking as described by ARINC with respect to ACARS?

No I am not. What I want to know is why it's so important? How can category a or b flight tracking change a hard copy of a telex which came off a
printer in the office? That's why I find it irrelevant, you guys do know that those are telex copies right? That's what i'm talking about, nothing
about flight following.

I deal with pilots every day and have great relationships with them, call many of them friends and fully respect them. One thing is for sure though,
most don't know much about ground operations i.e. office stuff then I know about flying a jumbo, I know lots about it, but sure can't fly one. A few
days ago I was sending an ACARS and a pilot was looking over my shoulder saying, "hey that's what it looks like." Just the nature of the industry, you
guys fly them, we do the rest

Drat, the telexes that I scanned didn't turn out very well, so i'm not going to post them.

What I'll do tomorrow is scan a few acars messages both up and down and post them for you guys to see. Unfortunately there will be blacked out in a
few areas... don't really want to share where or for who I work

Originally posted by g146541
Yeah, a text will sit inside of your phone until it can transmit it seems.
Maybe after the smash, the phone flew from the plane and caught signal.
Do err did cell phones work on planes?
I recall the phone call stories being called bull as you cannot use a cell in an airplane.
I really dunno.
Any number cruncher types care to give the cliffs notes?

It WAST'NT a cell phone!! It is a piece of communications equipment in the cockpit of the aircraft. When the message is received, the device sends a
type of ACK (Acknowledgment). Read the article people.

If this is true and United 175 really did receive an ACARS message *after* it hit the buildings then a whole new 9/11 rabbit hole just opened up in
front of me. Thats. Not. Possible.

If the plane was still at altitude *after* it was supposed to have hit the South Tower then what did we watch hit the tower? Sorry for
'typing-out-loud' but this has knocked me sideways a bit. It seems genuine but impossible.

edit on 2/12/11 by eightfold because: I must learn to use the preview button.

Planes did hit the towers, they just weren't the planes we were told they were. Both aircraft that hit the towers were repainted military aircraft
carrying underbelly fuel tanks. What was in the fuel tanks is up for question.

I did mention cliffs notes Bro.
This implies I am too lazy to look for myself in this arena, mostly because I believe we will never know the truth, so I don't let it bother me as it
is beyond my grasp literally.
But I still do have the question as to whether cell phones worked on airplanes then and now.
I will not step foot on a jet, I'm the fat old white version of BA Barrakis.

I do here what you are saying ProudBird, but I will have to continue to question the official story on what happened that day because of the stories I
have been told by family and friends (most Air Force veterans that know how to identify aircraft) that witnessed the aircraft hitting the towers.

All of the veterans identified the craft as KC-135's, not Boeing 767 passenger jets.

Gotta turn around what I said on the first few pages, now that I have done more research on ACARS, it can be a horribly inefficient system. That does
not prove that the original story has much bearing to reality though. It just debunks this "proof".

I have been told by family and friends (most Air Force veterans that know how to identify aircraft) that witnessed the aircraft hitting the
towers.

All of the veterans identified the craft as KC-135's, not Boeing 767 passenger jets.

Sorry, they are dead wrong. (Maybe they were pulling your leg??)

The B-767 has two engines. One each wing.

The KC-135 has four engines. Two each wing.

No one with any aviation knowledge would ever, ever confuse them. I don't feel like uploading pics, to post in-thread, so will just provide links
---

Boeing 767:

(Please, take note. I selected this one, because you can see all the gear doors still open, as it is in the process, still, of gear retraction).

KC-135 (Also, retracting the gear):

A 767 "beauty shot":

^ ^ ^ Above is a -300, little bit longer than UAL 175 on 9/11. Same paint scheme. Gear is up, but flaps are still extended, at 15&deg, and leading
edge slats extended too.

KC-135, clean (no gear, no flaps/slats) from below:
(Those sharp-eyed viewers will spot the difference in the four engines, from this version to the other KC-135 up above. Most of the aging tanker
fleet has been re-engined, to the newer high-bypass turbofans, but some still are flying with the older original turbojet engines).....

The 767 and KC-135 simply cannot be mistaken for one another.

Of course, there are countless photos and videos of UAL 175, as well.

ALSO, regarding "under belly tanks". No, that is a very, very old and well-discredited claim, based on bad interpretations by some people of certain
poor resolution photos and still frames from videos.

See if you can tell, in this photo of a United 767, again in the "old" paint scheme as 2001. Here, due to the camera angle, its even more exaggerated
-- the "bumps" on the belly of the fuselage, either side just at the wing root. Those are fairings that "bump out" a bit to accommodate the the man
landing gear bogeys (the four double tandem wheels, each gear) when they are retracted.

Also, that angle it's hard to tell, but down the center (bottom) of the belly is an area that is not painted. The dark blue lower "half" of the
fuselage doesn't continue all the way 'round, below. SO, you are left with a long, narrow rectangle of unpainted aluminium there. When people think
they're seen "under belly pods", it is just an illusion based on the design of the paint.

Look at this one:

Here's an example of their "next" paint scheme, they were transitioning to fleet-wide.....until the Continental merger, where they decided to adopt
the Continental scheme, just changing the name on the side:

You can see the same rectangles on the belly, where the paint stops.

Continental paint scheme, Ship #053, in May 2010:

Now, the SAME exact airplane, with the name already re-painted. In March 2011:

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.